What Would Happen If We Were All Passive Investors?



Gerry Frigon, CIO of Taylor Frigon Capital Management, wrote this article which was recently featured in Forbes, "What Would Happen If We Were All Passive Investors?".  It discusses how "...the perception that ETFs are safe, liquid, inexpensive and easy for the average investor to own is a dangerous trend that could have unforeseen consequences for the market and economy." READ MORE
Continue Reading

Have you heard of this company? Cryoport (CYRX)






































Cryoport is a logistics company specializing in solutions for the life sciences industry. The company provides a complete range of solutions for the unique needs of the nascent regenerative medicine field, including CAR-T therapy (discussed below). Cryoport currently has a market capitalization of $225 million and is headquartered in Irvine, California.

Cryoport's customers include biotech and pharmaceutical companies, medical research laboratories, universities, as well as fertility clinics involved in reproductive medicine, and veterinary companies involved in animal health. 

Of the company's revenues over the last four reported quarters, 76% came from biotech and pharma customers, 14% from customers involved in human reproductive medicine, and the remaining 10% from customers involved in the animal health industry. The company saw revenue growth in each segment over the past year, at a rate of 11% growth in revenues from the reproductive medicine segment, 34% growth in revenues from the animal health segment, and 72% growth year-over-year in revenues from biotech and pharma segment.

The astonishing growth in the biotech and pharma segment can be attributed primarily to the advent of a new paradigm in regenerative medicine, requiring patient samples and especially manufactured treatments to be shipped at temperatures below -136 degrees Celsius, much colder than the temperatures achieved with dry ice. Dry ice has a temperature of -79 degrees C, which is cold enough for the safe shipment of some types of treatments, but not for the new CAR-T and related treatments described below, which have only just begun to be approved for use with patients outside of clinical trials (the first two such treatments were approved by the FDA for patients in the US as recently as fall of 2017).

This relatively new field of regenerative medicine uses the body's own defense mechanisms, specifically the T-cells of the patient's own immune system, to fight diseases (especially cancer) which would otherwise be able to hide from the immune system. The video below gives a broad overview of the concept:

"Immunotherapy" is the term for treatments which use the patient's own immune system to fight a disease such as cancer, typically by adding information to the immune system to enable it to fight the problem that it otherwise would not be able to detect. Among the first types of immunotherapy to make it through clinical trials have been therapies using a technique known as CAR-T, which stands for "chimeric antigen receptor" in the T-cell, because these therapies use T-cells which have been altered to express a protein which otherwise would not be present, which is referred to as a chimeric antigen receptor.

In order to help the T-cells in the immune system of a patient fighting a specific type of cancer, CAR-T therapies take the T-cells from the individual patient to be treated, and then use a retrovirus to write new code to the T-cells causing them to express new antigen receptors which can defeat the "masking" capabilities described in the video above. The patient's own T-cells, modified with the chimeric antigen receptor protein, are then shipped back to the patient and introduced to the patient's own immune system, in the hope that they will enable the patient's own immune system to defeat the disease.

So far, some of the results for achieving complete remission from certain types of cancer have been extremely promising, with one CAR-T therapy for a type of leukemia which primarily affects children yielding complete remission in just over 80% of cases, versus chemotherapy alone, which achieved complete remission in less than 10% of cases. In another type of cancer afflicting primarily adults, complete remission was seen in nearly 40% of cases, versus only 8% for chemotherapy alone (some light chemotherapy is typically used on the patient prior to the re-introduction of the modified T-cells). Also, unlike other types of treatments, CAR-T therapy is typically a one-time treatment.

Logistically, these new types of regenerative medicine require the treatment (consisting of the  patient's own modified T-cells) to be kept in cryogenic suspense between the manufacturing facility (the lab where they are altered using a retrovirus to express the chimeric antigen receptor) and the hospital or other facility where they will be reintroduced to the patient. Additionally, if the sample does not stay below -136 degrees C the entire time, there is no easy way of knowing that just by looking at the sample -- it does not change color or appearance, and it does not change smell. Thus, keeping it at cryogenic temperatures, and knowing for certain that it has been kept at cryogenic temperatures the entire time, is extremely important.

It goes without saying that the logistics side of these treatments is extremely critical. Someone's life is depending on the treatment, and the effectiveness of that treatment is dependent upon keeping it cold enough the entire time until it is given to the patient. Additionally, the treatment itself tends to be very expensive, as it is a new type of therapy, it is manufactured specifically for each patient individually (using that patient's own T-cells), and it takes about eighteen days to manufacture each patient's individual treatment.

In other words, there is a lot riding on the integrity of the logistics solution in these treatments.

Cryoport's unique value proposition is a logistics solution which not only provides the containers which can keep a sample at temperatures below -150 degrees C, but which is also equipped with numerous sensors to track and record the temperature throughout the shipment, as well as to monitor other important readings which can help catch and correct problems before they lead to a "temperature excursion" which would compromise the treatment.

Cryoport designs their own cryogenic dry vapor dewars which are charged with liquid nitrogen and capable of keeping temperatures of the contents below -150 degrees C for up to ten days. Their dewars and related shipping containers (some of which are shown in the photograph at top) have certain patented features which distinguish them from others available in the logistics world.

However, the real differentiator of the Cryoport logistics solution is the ability to monitor the shipment throughout its entire journey on Cryoport software which enables both Cryoport and the customer to see where the product is at any given time, as well as to see the container's internal and external temperatures, the dewar's angle of tilt (if the dewar stays tilted too much for too long, its cryogenic temperatures will be compromised), the barometric pressure, the humidity and moisture levels present, the time and location of any "shock events" such as from accidentally dropping the container, and (using a light sensor) how many times the container is opened (which must sometimes take place if going through customs, for example).

Cryoport's software incorporates custom algorithms to help them manage the shipment very closely, and sends alerts if a shipment appears to be hung up in customs, or if conditions indicate the potential for a temperature excursion. Cryoport can then send personnel to remedy the problem, correcting the tilt, or recharging with liquid nitrogen, before cryogenic temperatures are ever compromised.

Cryoport's solution has been selected by all of the biotech and pharma companies who are active in developing immunotherapy or regenerative medicine treatments, including Novartis, MesoBlast, Atara Bio, bluebird bio, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Juno Therapeutics (now part of Celgene), and Kite (now part of Gilead). These and other companies currently have over 200 therapies in clinical trials which are using Cryoport for their logistics (214 in total).

The first two CAR-T therapies to make it through clinical trials were approved in the second half of last year: Kymriah from Novartis and Yescarta from Kite (now Gilead). Logistical requirements typically grow steadily as a therapy moves from Phase I to Phase II to Phase III of clinical trials. However, once a treatment is approved for commercial use, logistical requirements can increase significantly, as patients will then be located in many more locations, and their T-cells will have to be shipped to the pharmaceutical company's manufacturing facilities (laboratories) and the personalized treatments sent from there back to the patient's location.

In addition to the first two treatments to make it to FDA approval, there are now 26 therapies in Phase III clinical trials whose companies use Cryoport for their logistical solutions. If only 50% of these therapies make it to final FDA approval (which is an approximate estimation for therapies in Phase III trials, although there is no way to predict for certain, especially since this area of medicine is very new and there have been some treatments which have had severe problems during clinical trials and had to be discontinued) then that would suggest that Cryoport could have 12 to 13 additional therapies to service in the relatively near future.

The area of regenerative medicine is still in its infancy, and there are issues (particularly the cost of treatment) which will have to be addressed in the future. However, as noted above, there are some very promising indications that immunotherapy can become a new tool in helping the body's own immune system to fight disease, producing success rates well beyond the current treatments.

We believe that Cryoport has a logistics solution which addresses the unique needs of this exciting new field of medicine, one which is trusted by the major players in the industry, and one which is eminently scalable and can grow to meet the needs of patients and providers as the industry grows. Further, we believe there may be advantages to investing in Cryoport rather than trying to predict the clinical success of any one specific experimental treatment or any one specific biotech or pharmaceutical company participating in the regenerative medicine market.


-------------

At the time of publication, the principals of Taylor Frigon Capital Management owned securities issued by Cryoport (CYRX). At the time of publication, the principals of Taylor Frigon Capital Management did not own shares of any of the other companies mentioned (including FedEx, UPS, Novartis, or Gilead).

Disclosures: Please remember that past performance may not be indicative of future results. Different types of investments involve varying degrees of risk, and there can be no assurance that the future performance of any specific investment, investment strategy, or product (including the investments and/or investment strategies recommended or undertaken by Taylor Frigon Capital Management LLC (“Taylor Frigon”), or any non-investment related content, made reference to directly or indirectly in this blog will be profitable, equal any corresponding indicated historical performance level(s), be suitable for your portfolio or individual situation, or prove successful. Due to various factors, including changing market conditions and/or applicable laws, the content may no longer be reflective of current opinions or positions. Moreover, you should not assume that any discussion or information contained in this blog serves as the receipt of, or as a substitute for, personalized investment advice from Taylor Frigon. To the extent that a reader has any questions regarding the applicability of any specific issue discussed above to his/her individual situation, he/she is encouraged to consult with the professional advisor of his/her choosing. Taylor Frigon is neither a law firm nor a certified public accounting firm and no portion of the blog content should be construed as legal or accounting advice. A copy of the Taylor Frigon’s current written disclosure Brochure discussing our advisory services and fees is available upon request. If you are a Taylor Frigon client, please remember to contact Taylor Frigon, in writing, if there are any changes in your personal/financial situation or investment objectives for the purpose of reviewing/evaluating/revising our previous recommendations and/or services, or if you would like to impose, add, or to modify any reasonable restrictions to our investment advisory services.
Continue Reading

What Will The "Wizards of Wall Street" Think Up Next?



















image credit: ZeroHedge.

Well, that was fun!

The largest point drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) in history on Monday February 5, 2018.  Of course, the financial news media had a ball reporting on this historic day, regardless of the fact that when prices go higher, the impact of a higher price movement is, of course, relative (the percentage drop was not even close to historic).  Nonetheless, even we, who have been watching market moves for decades now, were somewhat taken back by the violent swing in the DJIA when at one point we observed about a 1000 point swing in a matter of mere seconds!

We have come to virtually ignore such actions despite the awe they inspire in the moments when they are happening.  Frankly, such events have become great "educational moments" for those of us who adhere to a discipline of considering the investments we make in publicly traded companies as investments in businesses.  Yes, we mean investments!  Does anybody remember that word?  Webster's defines it as follows: the outlay of money usually for income or profit : capital outlay; also : the sum invested or the property purchased.

We suggest that this is somewhat limiting because it does not give any reference to time.  We have always viewed investment in a business as something that requires time, some length of time, maybe years, to fully reap "income or profit" with any level of certainty.  At least Webster references "property" in the definition as this can in some way be connected to time.  Does anyone invest in property for a few seconds, even days, weeks, months, quarters?  Surely, years?  Of course it is possible to invest in property, and in this instance we mean "real property", or what is commonly known as "real estate" for any amount of time, even seconds, we suppose.  But in reality, most "investors," when investing in property, think of it as "long-term," measured in years, usually, as the time frame for which they will be invested.

How does this discussion of property ownership relate to Monday's wild stock volatility?

Well, referencing back to the action of the market on Monday past, it occurs to us that investing in businesses should be considered similarly to the way people invest in property.  But this is not the case in the stock market today.  And this lack of patience is exacerbated by the financial engineering that has been propagated by the illustrious "Wizards of Wall Street," who dream up complex "financial products" which have little to nothing to do with the allocation of capital to actual businesses.

In this recent article in the Wall Street Journal, "Born To Die: Inside XIV, The Busted Volatility ETN" author Charles Forelle describes the Credit Suisse creation called "VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Short-Term Exchange-Traded Note".  Huh?

This derivative instrument is a way for traders to "invest" in the lack of volatility in the market.  This does not sound like anything remotely resembling investing in businesses -- more like speculation or even gambling.  Especially when you follow the path of progression for this instrument that ultimately ensured that it would race to "zero" value in the future. Forelle notes that the instrument's prospectus even noted that it would ultimately result in zero value. However, along the way, it appears to have created a level of volatility in the shares for real businesses which happen to be traded on the public markets, and can therefore be connected to the reason we witnessed such wild swings in the market on February 5, 2018.

This is just the latest culprit.  There have been plenty of others over the years.  We recall the infamous "portfolio insurance" products of the 1980s that aided in the over 20% drop in the market averages on October 19, 1987.  Forelle references that disastrous day in his article as well.

When and where does this stop?  Perhaps nowhere and never.  As long as the focus is short-term in nature, and purports to give people better mouse-traps for making money (particularly the financial industry), then this stuff will continue.  We can only plead with those that care about their asset value over time that they avoid getting caught up in such schemes.  That they recognize there is no magic to making good returns investing but disciplined, hard and tenacious due diligence in choosing companies in which to invest.  And that the best way to invest is to stick as close to "real" investing as one can.  We have preached about this, and we have delivered this as professionals over the decades.  But we are often lone voices in the morass of the financial world in making this case.

Hopefully, days like Monday February 5, 2018 and follow up articles like the one Charles Forelle has written, will teach the world a lesson!

Disclosures: Please remember that past performance may not be indicative of future results. Different types of investments involve varying degrees of risk, and there can be no assurance that the future performance of any specific investment, investment strategy, or product (including the investments and/or investment strategies recommended or undertaken by Taylor Frigon Capital Management LLC (“Taylor Frigon”), or any non-investment related content, made reference to directly or indirectly in this blog will be profitable, equal any corresponding indicated historical performance level(s), be suitable for your portfolio or individual situation, or prove successful. Due to various factors, including changing market conditions and/or applicable laws, the content may no longer be reflective of current opinions or positions. Moreover, you should not assume that any discussion or information contained in this blog serves as the receipt of, or as a substitute for, personalized investment advice from Taylor Frigon. To the extent that a reader has any questions regarding the applicability of any specific issue discussed above to his/her individual situation, he/she is encouraged to consult with the professional advisor of his/her choosing. Taylor Frigon is neither a law firm nor a certified public accounting firm and no portion of the blog content should be construed as legal or accounting advice. A copy of the Taylor Frigon’s current written disclosure Brochure discussing our advisory services and fees is available upon request. If you are a Taylor Frigon client, please remember to contact Taylor Frigon, in writing, if there are any changes in your personal/financial situation or investment objectives for the purpose of reviewing/evaluating/revising our previous recommendations and/or services, or if you would like to impose, add, or to modify any reasonable restrictions to our investment advisory services.
Continue Reading

Active vs. Passive Redux




As investment managers who have espoused the value of actively managing a portfolio to try to beat average market returns, we have consistently brought investors' attention to those arguments in favor of such an approach.  We are particularly attentive when we see others making the arguments for us.  We have referenced the topic in many posts such as this one and this one.



The active vs. passive debate can be complex for the typical investor to adequately evaluate.  Nonetheless, the bias towards passive investment as a superior strategy has grown dramatically in recent years, particularly since the 2008-9 financial crisis.    Financial media pundits have wholeheartedly embraced the passive form of investment, and both individual and institutional  investors have voted with their funds in pouring assets into passive strategies. 



Interestingly, it appears that the almost decade-long march towards more passive strategies is changing.  In a recent article in the Financial Times, "Hungry Funds Look To Switch To Active Equity", the case is made that many institutional investors are looking to reverse that trend in the coming years.  While the article suggests that more than simple equities are on the radar of these institutions, the point is clear that a change in trend may be happening.



Frankly, we believe the rush to passive over the years has become a major danger for the market and economy, in general, because of the affect such strategies can have on adequate price discovery.  Essentially, if everyone were passive, how can companies be appropriately valued?  What does such lack of reliable valuations mean for the economy?  How can capital be effectively allocated in an environment where investors can't clearly determine value, ie., where are the good companies who deserve capital allocations?



We are proud that in this desert of active managers, our equity strategies have outperformed their benchmarks over the long term.  So, apparently, we have bucked the trend.  Yet, it doesn't give us comfort that the impact of passive investing may be much more significant than the effect the phenomenon has on the active investment management business.  In the December 7th, 2017 article in   "Chief Investment Officer" magazine entitled "Back to the Future", the author Vishesh Kumar gives a general overview of markets and touches on a number of investment trends.  However, we found the key point in the article was a reference Kumar made to a Neuberger Berman research piece that discussed the type of market we have been in since the financial crisis of 2008-9 (a largely passive-dominant market) and what has driven it:


Fueled by extraordinary global central bank intervention, equity markets have soared since their 2009 trough, leading to conditions unsupportive of traditional capitalism and active management, including high levels of correlation and low levels of dispersion,” Joseph Amato, Peter D’Onofrio, and Alessandra Rago from Neuberger Berman wrote in an October research report. “Stock correlations within the S&P 500, for example, have spiked nearly 20% since May 2009, depriving active managers of the opportunity to distinguish winners from losers through fundamental research. Post-crisis market conditions also suggest that the past decade is not an ideal timeframe over which to gauge an investment’s potential for long-term success across market cycles. We think central bank policy normalization could inspire a normalization in market dynamics."

Setting aside the change in trend back towards active management, it should concern every investor who believes in free enterprise capitalism and bases their investment decisions on finding the best companies in which to invest that recent government policies have served to stultify "traditional capitalism." It underscores what we have been saying for years about the heavy hand of government and its effects on the economy and capital formation.  Too much government starves the economy and markets from the capital it needs to expand and redirects it towards, most often, inefficient government projects (a "Bridge to Nowhere" anyone?).  Is it any wonder the number of public companies has been almost cut in half?

We really don't concern ourselves with whether or not the "trends" are in favor of active management or passive management: we will continue to seek out great businesses in which to invest capital.  However, if the trends favoring passive over active are symptomatic of damaging policies which impede the proper allocation of capital, then we all should be concerned, professional investor or not.

Disclosures: Please remember that past performance may not be indicative of future results.  Different types of investments involve varying degrees of risk, and there can be no assurance that the future performance of any specific investment, investment strategy, or product (including the investments and/or investment strategies recommended or undertaken by Taylor Frigon Capital Management LLC (“Taylor Frigon”), or any non-investment related content, made reference to directly or indirectly in this blog will be profitable, equal any corresponding indicated historical performance level(s), be suitable for your portfolio or individual situation, or prove successful.  Due to various factors, including changing market conditions and/or applicable laws, the content may no longer be reflective of current opinions or positions. Moreover, you should not assume that any discussion or information contained in this blog serves as the receipt of, or as a substitute for, personalized investment advice from Taylor Frigon.  To the extent that a reader has any questions regarding the applicability of any specific issue discussed above to his/her individual situation, he/she is encouraged to consult with the professional advisor of his/her choosing.  Taylor Frigon is neither a law firm nor a certified public accounting firm and no portion of the blog content should be construed as legal or accounting advice.  A copy of the Taylor Frigon’s current written disclosure Brochure discussing our advisory services and fees is available upon request. If you are a Taylor Frigon client, please remember to contact Taylor Frigon, in writing, if there are any changes in your personal/financial situation or investment objectives for the purpose of reviewing/evaluating/revising our previous recommendations and/or services, or if you would like to impose, add, or to modify any reasonable restrictions to our investment advisory services.
Continue Reading

Have you heard of this company...Glaukos (GKOS)?



Over the years, we have written about the Classic Growth Stock Theory of Investing (see for example this post and this post).

We have also periodically highlighted companies which we believe exhibit these characteristics and which we own in the portfolios we manage for our investors (or which we owned at the time of publication when we wrote about them). Some examples of companies we have written about in the past include Tractor Supply Co* and Amphenol.*

Today, we're highlighting the business of another company which we own for our investors in our Core Growth Strategy, the medical device company Glaukos (ticker symbol GKOS). It has a market capitalization of about $1 billion on trailing twelve-month revenues of about $150 million (and no dividend).

Glaukos pioneered a new approach to the treatment of certain types of glaucoma, which is an irreversible and progressive eye condition that can cause vision loss and eventually blindness. As Glaukos explains on the company website:
Glaucoma is commonly associated with increased pressure in the eye due to an imbalance in production and outflow of ocular fluid. In a healthy eye, fluid is produced to help maintain the eye's shape. Normally, this natural fluid flows out through an area called the trabecular meshwork, and is absorbed into the bloodstream. If the fluid does not drain at the same rate that it is produced, pressure will begin to build in the eye. Over time, this increased pressure can damage the optic nerve and destroy vision.
Glaucoma is commonly treated with drugs which can help decrease the production of ocular fluid and the resulting pressure buildup, and in more extreme cases it has traditionally been addressed with surgery. However, Glaukos invented a miniature stent which can be inserted into the eye to reopen the body's natural drainage channels, and has proven to help restore balance and reduce the pressure that can damage the optic nerve. This stent, called the iStent, is the smallest known medical device ever to be approved for insertion into the human body, and can be seen on the face of a US penny for size perspective in the video above.

This procedure ushered in a new type of treatment for glaucoma, which has been called "minimally-invasive glaucoma surgery," sometimes abbreviated as MIGS. At present, the procedure is done in conjunction with cataract surgery: both glaucoma and cataracts are diseases of the eye which are most common among older patients (although not exclusively so).

About 3.9 million cataract surgeries are performed per year in the United States, and about 20 million per year worldwide. Between 15% and 19% of those getting these surgeries are also taking medication for glaucoma, and with the advice of their healthcare professional may elect to have the the MIGS surgery to attempt to restore the natural outflow mechanism for drainage of ocular fluid (that adds up to about 700,000 candidate procedures for MIGS per year in the US alone). Studies have shown that most patients are able to maintain normal ocular fluid pressure after receiving the iStent, without the need to continue taking medication.

Currently, less than half of the eye doctors in the US who do cataract surgery have been through the training for the iStent. We believe that in the future, patients may seek out doctors who are able to provide MIGS, as the benefits of this minimally-invasive device become more apparent.

Additionally, Glaukos has products in the development pipeline which (if approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies) could be used for minimally-invasive glaucoma remediation outside of cataract surgery (more discussion of the Glaukos pipeline below).

We believe that Glaukos is an innovative and well-run company which is improving the world with its products and is positioned in front of potentially fertile fields for future growth. It has basically created an entirely new category of treatment for glaucoma (MIGS).

However, Glaukos investors have experienced dramatic share-price declines in 2017, as seen in the long-term stock chart below (which goes back to the company's IPO in July of 2016). The stock has dropped nearly 29% in price over the past twelve months, despite the fact that the company's operating earnings growth over the similar period is 120%.

















Some of the reasons for the stock decline during 2017 appear to be short-term in nature, such as delays in the number of patients getting surgeries due to the hurricanes in Florida and the Gulf coast region. However, investors have also shown concerns over competitors entering the market with competing minimally-invasive glaucoma surgery devices, as well as concerns over Medicare reimbursement rates in the US.

In July of this year, the US Food and Drug Administration approved competitor Alcon's CyPass micro-stent for use in cataract surgery with patients on medication for mild to moderate open-angle glaucoma. Alcon is a large and well-known company, and they aggressively marketed their alternative to the Glaukos iStent.

Although the introduction of CyPass is now giving Glaukos competition in the category of minimally-invasive glaucoma surgery that Glaukos pioneered, there are several reasons that we believe that the Glaukos approach will continue to be preferred in the future. First, the CyPass device is a lot bigger than the iStent. Second, it targets a different space to create drainage for the ocular fluid (creating a new incision rather than using the body's natural canal that is used in a healthy eye but which has become clogged up in a patient suffering from certain types of glaucoma). Because of these differences, there may be more potential for complications after the surgery.

The compensation issue is somewhat complicated and beyond the scope of this blog post to explain fully, but it involves the payment to the surgeon who inserts the iStent, rather than the compensation that Glaukos receives from the clinic or hospital where the surgery is done (which pays for the stent itself and other materials used in the surgical procedure). At present, the surgeon's compensation is set by the different "Medicare Administrative Contractors" that contract with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services in different regions of the US. These different contractors in different regions have been setting the surgeon's compensation for the iStent procedure at levels that have some marked differences around the country. We believe these differences are likely to get sorted out over time, but right now they are causing some consternation among investors.

Because of these issues, investors have been cautious on the Glaukos story during the second half of 2017 and going into 2018. They may become more constructive after the company issues its 2018 guidance, which is scheduled to be issued in February.

We also believe that the pipeline of products in development at Glaukos are not being fully appreciated by the investment community at this time. Glaukos has a very robust pipeline of products moving their way through research and development and into clinical trials. These products include
a) the iStent Inject, which is a needle that is pre-loaded with two iStent devices instead of just one, so that a surgeon can enter once and implant twice,
b) the iStent Supra, which targets a different drainage pathway for certain patients,
c) the iStent SA, for patients who do not need cataract surgery,
d) the iStent Infinite, which has three stents in one injection for patients with very severe glaucoma, and
e) the iDose, which is similar in form-factor to the other iStent devices but includes a tiny reservoir which contains glaucoma medication that will drip out over a long period of time, perhaps up to twelve or eighteen months.

We believe Glaukos is an example of the kinds of companies that investors who follow the classic Taylor Frigon growth philosophy should find very interesting. Often, a multi-year story will have some twists and turns and bumps in the road along the way. However, we believe that the characteristics of a classic growth company will eventually provide good results for investors over time -- and we believe that Glaukos is a company that fits that definition.




----------
* At the time of publication, the principals of Taylor Frigon Capital Management owned securities issued by Tractor Supply Co (TSCO), Amphenol (APH), and Glaukos (GKOS).

Disclosures: Please remember that past performance may not be indicative of future results.  Different types of investments involve varying degrees of risk, and there can be no assurance that the future performance of any specific investment, investment strategy, or product (including the investments and/or investment strategies recommended or undertaken by Taylor Frigon Capital Management LLC (“Taylor Frigon”), or any non-investment related content, made reference to directly or indirectly in this blog will be profitable, equal any corresponding indicated historical performance level(s), be suitable for your portfolio or individual situation, or prove successful.  Due to various factors, including changing market conditions and/or applicable laws, the content may no longer be reflective of current opinions or positions. Moreover, you should not assume that any discussion or information contained in this blog serves as the receipt of, or as a substitute for, personalized investment advice from Taylor Frigon.  To the extent that a reader has any questions regarding the applicability of any specific issue discussed above to his/her individual situation, he/she is encouraged to consult with the professional advisor of his/her choosing.  Taylor Frigon is neither a law firm nor a certified public accounting firm and no portion of the blog content should be construed as legal or accounting advice.  A copy of the Taylor Frigon’s current written disclosure Brochure discussing our advisory services and fees is available upon request. If you are a Taylor Frigon client, please remember to contact Taylor Frigon, in writing, if there are any changes in your personal/financial situation or investment objectives for the purpose of reviewing/evaluating/revising our previous recommendations and/or services, or if you would like to impose, add, or to modify any reasonable restrictions to our investment advisory services.
Continue Reading